BREAKING Watchman Nee and Witness Lee aren't in the Bible

[Zezima]

This post will discuss the most recent article on Shepherding Words, a website deployed by Living Stream ministry to address "rumors that have arisen over the years regarding the local churches"

In this article, the Lord's Recovery points out that the doctrine of “One City One Church is a basic principle by which the Lord's recovery is based”. Something that the "Lord's Recovery has practiced since it began in China" (I thought the Recovery has been going on for hundreds of years, that's a different topic though).

To justify this doctrine and expand on what the boundary of a “city” is, the article turns to what Watchman Nee & Witness lee said as the authority that dictates what this doctrine entails. In fact, they do this 9 times to justify this doctrine.

From the article:

- "Brother Nee studied this matter thoroughly and gave a series of messages on “The Assembly Life.” There he said:"
- "Brother Lee expressed particular concern"
- "Using the church in Taipei as an example, he (Lee) said
- "Elsewhere he (Lee) told us:"
- "Ignatius’s error is evident from Brother Lee’s careful exposition of Acts 20:
- "Brother Lee commented"
- "The Elders’ Management of the Church, Brother Lee clearly stated"
- "He (Lee) continued:"
- "Lee said in A Brief Presentation of the Lord’s Recovery:"

Why does this matter?

Well, the One City One Church doctrine states that every city should only have one church. The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city. Anyone other than churches outside their local church is degraded, and divisive.

“All the divisions and denominations will consummate in the great Babylon.- Life-study of Genesis, msg. 34: Life in Resurrection (3)”

It's a bold claim, Christians who don't attend your congregation are in fallen degraded Babylon. However, the fact that this is a bold claim doesn’t make this doctrine incorrect, I mean, Christian’s believe a man resurrected from the dead. Now this post isn't even meant to debate the legitimacy of the One City One Church Doctrine..

The interesting thing about this bold claim (One city One church), is that the Lord’s Recovery justifies it not by the Bible but by what Watchman Nee and Witness lee said. The entire article argues the nuance of the doctrine, using these two men's word as its authoritative voice.

So what?

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee are not in the Bible, and did not write a single word in the Bible. Why are their words being used as authority to justify a doctrine that identifies other Christians as degraded? Why are the words of these two men being used as justification to a doctrine that claims a Lord’s Recovery church is the only true church in a city?

The Lords Recovery claims they don’t follow a man, and yet here they are using two men's words as the authoritative foundation to a doctrine.

The Bible is the only authoritative text for Christians, not the text of Living Stream Ministry.

To quote Jesus (who’s in the Bible)
“This people honors me with their lips,
 but their heart is far from me, in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

In this article, the Lord's Recovery points out that the doctrine of “One City One Church is a basic principle by which the Lord's recovery is based”. Something that the "Lord's Recovery has practiced since it began in China" (I thought the Recovery has been going on for hundreds of years, that's a different topic though).

To justify this doctrine and expand on what the boundary of a “city” is, the article turns to what Watchman Nee & Witness lee said as the authority that dictates what this doctrine entails. In fact, they do this 9 times to justify this doctrine.

Well, the One City One Church doctrine states that every city should only have one church. The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city. Anyone other than churches outside their local church is degraded, and divisive.

If Nee and Lee really believed this teaching, they would have shut down all their churches and joined the Exclusive Brethren churches since they were the first to build on this principle.

To say that Nee or Lee "recovered" this teaching on the "ground of the church" also known as "one church one city," rejects the events of church history. Darby and the Exclusive Brethren developed these onerous teachings in the late 19th century.

If you examine the facts of history hidden behind this false teaching, you will find exactly what it was used for. Both the Darby Exclusives and the Recovery leaders have always used this false teaching to legitimatize their own member churches while de-legitimatizing all others. It's a power grab, plain and simple.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To say that Nee or Lee "recovered" this teaching on the "ground of the church" also known as "one church one city," rejects the events of church history. Darby and the Exclusive Brethren developed these onerous teachings in the late 19th century.

If you examine the facts of history hidden behind this false teaching, you will find exactly what it was used for. Both the Darby Exclusives and the Recovery leaders have always used this false teaching to legitimatize their own member churches while de-legitimatizing all others. It's a power grab, plain and simple.

Yes, while the doctrine itself is worth debating, I want this thread to highlight the fact they used Nee & Lee’s words as the authority. They didn’t, and often don’t use the Bible.

[Trapped]

Zezima,

Excellent points in your OP. They truly follow the doctrines of men. It's all "brother Lee said", "brother Lee said," and even, ironically, "brother Lee said not to say brother Lee said", hahaha....

They don't even realize their own words give them away. They say things like, "This has been our practice since brother Lee started it X years ago...." Ah, so you have your own "traditions of men" that you hold to with an iron fist, just like Jesus pinned the Pharisees about, got it!

Trapped

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Zezima,

Excellent points in your OP. They truly follow the doctrines of men. It's all "brother Lee said", "brother Lee said," and even, ironically, "brother Lee said not to say brother Lee said", hahaha....

They don't even realize their own words give them away. They say things like, "This has been our practice since brother Lee started it X years ago...." Ah, so you have your own "traditions of men" that you hold to with an iron fist, just like Jesus pinned the Pharisees about, got it!

Trapped

Exactly, it’s clear as day.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Yes, while the doctrine itself is worth debating, I want this thread to highlight the fact they used Nee & Lee’s words as the authority. They didn’t, and often don’t use the Bible.

When the Blendeds came into the Midwest to divide all the LC’s, they had absolutely no justification based on the scriptures. The basis for their destructive work was the teachings of WL and the numerous comments WL had made about TC behind closed doors. This has been discussed at length.

[SpeakersCorner]

One church per city is not a prescription in the NT. It is a description of a reality. Even today, wherever there is a city, there is a single church there no matter how many different buildings with different names on the signs exist within.

Years ago when flying over the great Midwest at night I looked down and pointed out to my dear wife the city of St. Louis. Its glory and its definition at night were the lights. It was at this moment I had an epiphany/clarification on this matter of one church per city. From the heavens God only sees one.

Many, maybe most, local churchers simply saw their assemblies as that one church per city but they were wrong. Their meeting hall signs were simply were a testimony to this fact.

Once when I was visiting Pittsburgh (maybe Ohio was there that day) I spoke in the meeting introducing myself as one from "the church in ___." I said, "We have, oh, I don't know, 20,000 or so members." People gaped at me. I added, "And about 20 meeting in our building."

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

One church per city is not a prescription in the NT. It is a description of a reality. Even today, wherever there is a city, there is a single church there no matter how many different buildings with different names on the signs exist within.

Years ago when flying over the great Midwest at night I looked down and pointed out to my dear wife the city of St. Louis. Its glory and its definition at night were the lights. It was at this moment I had an epiphany/clarification on this matter of one church per city. From the heavens God only sees one.

Many, maybe most, local churchers simply saw their assemblies as that one church per city but they were wrong. Their meeting hall signs were simply were a testimony to this fact.

Once when I was visiting Pittsburgh (maybe Ohio was there that day) I spoke in the meeting introducing myself as one from "the church in ___." I said, "We have, oh, I don't know, 20,000 or so members." People gaped at me. I added, "And about 20 meeting in our building."

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

I agree here. It's not that the Bible shows that "there should be one church in each city", rather, it shows that "there IS one church in each city".

Where the Lord's Recovery goes awry is that they claim "and we are it"!

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

One church per city is not a prescription in the NT. It is a description of a reality. Even today, wherever there is a city, there is a single church there no matter how many different buildings with different names on the signs exist within.

Years ago when flying over the great Midwest at night I looked down and pointed out to my dear wife the city of St. Louis. Its glory and its definition at night were the lights. It was at this moment I had an epiphany/clarification on this matter of one church per city. From the heavens God only sees one.

Many, maybe most, local churchers simply saw their assemblies as that one church per city but they were wrong. Their meeting hall signs were simply were a testimony to this fact.

Once when I was visiting Pittsburgh (maybe Ohio was there that day) I spoke in the meeting introducing myself as one from "the church in ___." I said, "We have, oh, I don't know, 20,000 or so members." People gaped at me. I added, "And about 20 meeting in our building."

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

Greetings Apollo. Perhaps I was there. We heard so much crazy over the years, the gape was mostly gone.

Then Mr. Corner, would you agree with the Orthodox Church teaching of one church per country? It’s also a reality. From the heavens, God only sees one church per country, eh?

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

You’re welcome to start a thread to debate the legitimacy of this doctrine. The point of this thread is to highlight a reality of the Lord’s Recovery, bearing its ugly head in the most recent article put out by The Lord’s Recovery.

To define and justify a doctrine, the Lords Recovery turns to what Watchman Nee & Witness lee said as the authority that dictates what this doctrine entails.

They don’t do this just once, but they do this 9 times to justify this doctrine

From the article:
Quote:
- "Brother Nee studied this matter thoroughly and gave a series of messages on “The Assembly Life.” There he said:"
- "Brother Lee expressed particular concern"
- "Using the church in Taipei as an example, he (Lee) said
- "Elsewhere he (Lee) told us:"
- "Ignatius’s error is evident from Brother Lee’s careful exposition of Acts 20:
- "Brother Lee commented"
- "The Elders’ Management of the Church, Brother Lee clearly stated"
- "He (Lee) continued:"
- "Lee said in A Brief Presentation of the Lord’s Recovery:"

This people honors me with their lips,
 but their heart is far from me, in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.


Don’t you see? It doesn’t matter if the doctrine is legitimate. Their whole justification for its legitimacy is based on what men say, not the word of God. Nee & Lee are not in the Bible, They are not authors of the Bible. It’s blasphemy to point to their words as authority for doctrinal matters.

The corner stone of the church is Jesus Christ, not Witness Lee, Not Watchman Nee.

Some of you will say the Lord’s Recovery doesn’t follow a man, but it does: it’s a reality. The most recent article published by the co-workers show this reality.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

One church per city is not a prescription in the NT. It is a description of a reality. Even today, wherever there is a city, there is a single church there no matter how many different buildings with different names on the signs exist within.

Years ago when flying over the great Midwest at night I looked down and pointed out to my dear wife the city of St. Louis. Its glory and its definition at night were the lights. It was at this moment I had an epiphany/clarification on this matter of one church per city. From the heavens God only sees one.

Many, maybe most, local churchers simply saw their assemblies as that one church per city but they were wrong. Their meeting hall signs were simply were a testimony to this fact.

Once when I was visiting Pittsburgh (maybe Ohio was there that day) I spoke in the meeting introducing myself as one from "the church in ___." I said, "We have, oh, I don't know, 20,000 or so members." People gaped at me. I added, "And about 20 meeting in our building."

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

Agree with SC and would add this clarification to also address Zezima's base post:

Zezima> "The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city."

Actually "no", this is a misunderstanding. Rather, they believe that they are standing on the unique ground of oneness --- that is all believers in a city make up the church in that city as all share the same life of Christ their Head." They "see" the same reality that SC describes without the aid of a flyover. If that is what they are being accused of then guilty as charged.

Zezima, concerning your primary objection about co-workers or the saints quoting senior co-workers (Bro Lee and Bro Nee) I believe that is normal and biblical. You may consider 9 references excessive but I don't consider 9. 90, or 900 references as excessive as long as those quotes and references are based on revelation and light received from the Bible.

Ephesians 4:11-12 confirms that the Lord uses men for the building of Body of Christ.

"And He Himself gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as shepherds and some as teachers, for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry unto the building up of he Body of Christ"

Ephesians 4:16 shows that some men are channels of rich supply from the Head that cause each member of the Body to function according to its measure.

"Out from whom all the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply and through the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love"

Of course, under the divine arrangement we would reference others. Not all revelation and light we receive is direct from the Lord as the above scripture shows. In the context of the scripture above both Brother Lee and Brother Nee are in the Bible - gifts to the Body and joints of rich supply.

Thanks,
Drake